How long would Aviation units be effective.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Yes, I can see the US buying Pucaras and spares in bulk from Argentina, especially after the nuclear strikes.

And what exactly will they be paying for them with?
Post nuke there will be no banking system. The vast majority of modern wealth is computer based and exists as nothing more than electronic information. EMP will wipe that out entirely.
All that will be left is hard currency, gold, silver and other precious minerals. Forget about the stock market, even paper money... The US (and most countries) will be effectively bankrupted overnight.

[Panther Al]

Until the TDM, I don't see any significant degradation of the use of airpower as the build up to war would allow time to build up spares across the board. Post-TDM however I could see airpower being cut back in this order:

(With exceptions based on specific situations)
First to go would be strategic bombing.
Then deep strike aircraft (but wait... They will be back)
Air forces on the whole will see their fuel allocations drop out significantly at this point.
Army aviation will be next, though there will be small scale use whenever possible.
At this time I would pull fuel back from army aviation as with the nukes being by and large used up, as well as top of the line air defence, using what high end strike aircraft will really pay off against any supply/troop/choke points that may be found, paying off the cutting of deep strike earlier than really needed.

That how I would do it at anyrate. A few hoarded strike fighter and attack aircraft using up some of the fuel tucked away for really really big emergencies would have paid off big in a kalisz situation.

[Adm.Lee]

I think prop planes might make a brief comeback in the recon/liaison role briefly, like during 1999, when their might still be parts and fuel available. After the gasoline goes away, nada. Some of those might be squirreled away for important jobs, like the Krakow helicopter.

Speaking of Krakow, deep in the "Free city" module, there was a nearby village holding an American F-16 pilot prisoner. Then and now, my mind boggles at this- "they've been holding this poor guy for how many years, and haven't found an army to take him away?" Lately, I've been wondering if he wasn't on one of the last strike (or photo-recon) missions of the war, saved up for the summer 2000 offensive. Like maybe a key bridge between Poland and the Soviet reserves in Ukraine? I've been thinking of rescuing him as a convention/one-shot game someday soon. Maybe his pictures are worth something....

[dragoon500ly]

I've been looking over some old Congressional Records and here is the best guess insofar as the Air Farce...

USAF is supposed to maintain about 30 days of war stock, past that, controlled stripping of damaged aircraft to maintain serviceable aircraft to keep aircraft flying for another 15 days.... Right!

The one that had me shaking my head is that US industry was supposed to be in full scale production within that 45-day window!

Then there was a mention that the various ac builders would not be able to restore full production for a period of six months...minimum.

Keeps coming right back to the lead time going into war. To sustain anything like what GDW came up with, there had to be at least a 3-5 year build-up of forces.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I've been looking over some old Congressional Records and here is the best guess insofar as the Air Farce...

USAF is supposed to maintain about 30 days of war stock, past that, controlled stripping of damaged aircraft to maintain serviceable aircraft to keep aircraft flying for another 15 days.... Right!

The one that had me shaking my head is that US industry was supposed to be in full scale production within that 45-day window!

Then there was a mention that the various ac builders would not be able to restore full production for a period of six months...minimum.

Keeps coming right back to the lead time going into war. To sustain anything like what GDW came up with, there had to be at least a 3-5 year build-up of forces.

Yes that is one of the that I ask. Remember the US did have a year or two head start before being attack at Pearl Harbor, some source would push the date back another year or two before 1939. So the US had a considerable lead up to it entry into the war 1941. On the down side, many of the material they were making were being sent to various location to support the UK and it various holdings in the world and to the Soviet Union. It still took the US two more year to properly equip and train units.

Yeah, considering many Division that had been activated were continuously being stripped for Cadre for new Divisions to a point where one Divisional Commander after receiving orders told his superiors that he could send the Cadre, but he would need a Cadre to help train the new troops that would of poured into to fill the ranks. Another thing is after a Reserve or National Guard unit had been activated. It wouldn't take long for it lose it 'local' flavor. I can see units being asked to send troops over early as replacements, if not entire Squads on up to Brigade size units being stripped from a unit to help make up replacements for units already in the fight. Leaving the units to fill void by reorganization and receiving replacements, that they would have to train.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And what exactly will they be paying for them with?

Leg,

To be exact, they could pay with a mineral known as "gold", with the symbol of "Au" from the Greek "Auric" and an atomic weight of 79. Along with other strategic metals, the US government has stockpiled several thousand tons of gold and silver in NYC/Manhattan and Ft. Knox, KY. It's possible in the event of a global war even more would be stockpiled.



Well, you did say be specific!

Even if there wasn't gold available, the USA still has a considerable amount of resources, including mineral rights and other convertible wealth. Finances and bookkeeping existed far earlier than computers, for thousands of years. It wouldn't take long for such methods to be resurrected, in a kind of lend-lease deal like in WWII. That is, not cash (or cigarettes) on the barrelhead but owed for some period, with interest.

Admiral Lee mentioned fuel, and while the supply of JP4/JP8 would decrease (but not cease) and the immense strategic oil reserves be depleted, propeller-driven aircraft can use ethanol instead of kerosene-based fuel. Unfortunately, the engines need to be converted as using ethanol in unmodified engines is more damaging than in petrol engines.

Tony

[natehale1971]

This is one of the reasons I've liked the slow build-up to the war. It allows things to be more indepth and allows for the war to spread all across the globe. Because, admit it... There are states in South America who would love to go at the US if given the chance (such as Venezuela).

My slow build-up idea allowed me to develop background reasons for Mexico to invade the US, and creating the extensive alliance that would cause the US to have to divert resources into the Southern Hemisphere (and another front in Africa as well).

One of the things i loved about Twilight 2000 was the fact we sat down and wrote up all kinds of supplemental materials for conflicts all around the globe (before T2k 2.0 and 2.2 came out) while we were aboard the Ike. Having an Operations Specialist in our group made it really fun. One of my current Gamer friends is an ex-Military Intelligence Specialist... i've got him to promise to help read over the work i'm doing for "WWIV: A World In Flames" to make sure that the write-ups read well.. and i'm not forgetting anything.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

This is one of the reasons I've liked the slow build-up to the war. It allows things to be more indepth and allows for the war to spread all across the globe. Because, admit it... There are states in South America who would love to go at the US if given the chance (such as Venezuela).

Nate,

Without Hugo Chávez in power, would Venezuela be so belligerent? He was elected after a crisis of confidence in 1998. Fitting this into the T2K timeline, it makes sense the government of Venezuela would collapse with or without nuclear strikes, giving Chávez an avenue to power, perhaps with KGB backing (going back for years). Presumably, there would be substantial Venezuelans along with the Mexicans in invading the USA.

Tony

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Nate,

Without Hugo Chávez in power, would Venezuela be so belligerent? He was elected after a crisis of confidence in 1998. Fitting this into the T2K timeline, it makes sense the government of Venezuela would collapse with or without nuclear strikes, giving Chávez an avenue to power, perhaps with KGB backing (going back for years). Presumably, there would be substantial Venezuelans along with the Mexicans in invading the USA.

Tony

In 1992 he carried out a failed coupe... something that if he had someone supporting him, he just might have been able to hold onto power and have six years more time in charge to consolidate power and become a very... very BIG thorn in the side of the US in South America... In fact he's one of the major leaders of the Havana Pact in my campaign...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Even if there wasn't gold available, the USA still has a considerable amount of resources, including mineral rights and other convertible wealth. Finances and bookkeeping existed far earlier than computers, for thousands of years. It wouldn't take long for such methods to be resurrected, in a kind of lend-lease deal like in WWII. That is, not cash (or cigarettes) on the barrelhead but owed for some period, with interest.

Yes, Gold is the obvious first thought, however how interested is another country going to be in gold when the entire world is in the toilet? What are they going to do with all that gold in the short term? How is it going to be shipped to them in the first place and where exactly is the US going to find it? I would imagine Fort Knox is little more than a steaming crater by this time....

Moving on, "rights" are only worth anything when there are organisations and governments in existence to acknowledge them. Resources (such as food) are not likely to be shipped offshore to foreign countries when they're so badly needed at home. In the year or three post nuke, what sort of resources will the US be able to offer to other countries that they might actually be interested in? The US government is effectively a memory. What's left can make promises and treaties, but how much weight would they have?

As for alternate accounting methods, yes, they exist. BUT, the vast majority of records are either electronically stored, or would have been vaporised or buried under piles of rubble when the nukes hit. Yes, the tools may exist, but the value those tools are supposed to handle is effectively gone.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, Gold is the obvious first thought, however how interested is another country going to be in gold when the entire world is in the toilet? What are they going to do with all that gold in the short term? How is it going to be shipped to them in the first place and where exactly is the US going to find it? I would imagine Fort Knox is little more than a steaming crater by this time....

Moving on, "rights" are only worth anything when there are organisations and governments in existence to acknowledge them. Resources (such as food) are not likely to be shipped offshore to foreign countries when they're so badly needed at home. In the year or three post nuke, what sort of resources will the US be able to offer to other countries that they might actually be interested in? The US government is effectively a memory. What's left can make promises and treaties, but how much weight would they have?

As for alternate accounting methods, yes, they exist. BUT, the vast majority of records are either electronically stored, or would have been vaporised or buried under piles of rubble when the nukes hit. Yes, the tools may exist, but the value those tools are supposed to handle is effectively gone.

Leg,

Although it seems natural to us that the only worthwhile investments are "canned food and shotguns" (per Gremlins 2), the Twilight war passed the threshold of civilisational collapse without really anyone noticing. This is one of the keys of the background. Protecting important databases from EMP is hardly rocket science.

Governments at least would be interested in doing business as usual, even during wartime, as they tend to see things in the long term. It's vague how the economy in South America fared, but it's possible there was some kind of exchange of gold at the national level or trade in minerals or oil. Further, they knew (or at least hoped) the war was going to end at some point, if the USA took decades to pay off its debt, so what? The UK just finished paying off its WWII debt, one where civilisation didn't collapse. Obligations could be put off for quite a while.

Perhaps it's like this: if the USA can make good on its promises, then all well and good. If it can't because there is no government or a weak government, then they can pretty much do what they like without retaliation. (For example, nationalise American assets outside the USA.) There might not be many working refineries in (say) 1999 in the USA but a tanker full of crude from the strategic reserve would buy a nice bunch of Pucaras and spare parts from Argentina or a number of then-new Super Tucanos from Embrauer in Brasil.

As for Ft. Knox, it's more than likely the gold was evacuated; it wasn't like no one thought a nuclear war was a possibility. After all, someone tried (and at least partially failed) to recover the gold in Manhattan. Ft. Knox would have a higher priority and easier security.

Tony

[Targan]

I kind of lean towards where Leg is coming from on this one. I just can't see countries trading hardware like aircraft to other countries, even very friendly ones, after the nukes have started flying. It may happen but I think it would be very rare.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

I kind of lean towards where Leg is coming from on this one. I just can't see countries trading hardware like aircraft to other countries, even very friendly ones, after the nukes have started flying. It may happen but I think it would be very rare.

I agree as well. A deal could be struck, but getting the aircraft back to the U.S. is not going to be easy. Also, I'm not sure why, in a deteriorating global security situation, a country would want to part with relatively simple, easy to maintain, combat aircraft.

On a side note, I used to live in Uruguay and they had a few Pucaras. I've seen a couple both on the runway and in the air.

Back to the main question, I think that a couple of tactical nuke strikes (at the very least) would be directed at airfields and/or aviation fuel storage areas. This could only have a detrimental effect on aviation operations.

[Abbott Shaull]

Once the nuke start flying anyone trying to buy military hardware from anyone would be called off. As I recall there were some Cadillac Cage Stingrays that some country had order that made their way into the US Inventory after the start of the war.

That is one of the thing where this war would be very different from WWII. There isn't going to be one nation supplying the bulk of either allied, they would have to fend for themselves. Soviets supply lines to Pact allies would dry up quickly, and supplies from the US to other allies would be drastically reduced too after they started seeing action too.